Why not create a word for matrimony blessed by GOD (Christian Marriage)

[Bill the Cat]

If only "no un-repented sin" was actually a specified condition...

So, "you must be born again" doesn't qualify? "Repent and be baptized" doesn't count?

[Carrikature]

So, "you must be born again" doesn't qualify? "Repent and be baptized" doesn't count?

Not the way you would like. It's either comprehensive or retroactive. If it's comprehensive, all sins are considered as repented. If it's retroactive, then it's only those things that happened before the act of repentance. Even if you require regular acts of repentance, no human is fully aware of all their sins. Are you still held accountable for things you didn't know (or think) were wrong, to the point of exclusion? That gets you into things like last rites.

More common to me is the idea that all your sins have been forgiven, but that the continued act of repentance is part of the sanctification and acknowledging your faults. I don't think that gets you to excluding homosexuals either.

[Paprika]

The problem is that some homosexuals think that they are Christians, despite their un-repented sin, so they will claim the name for theirs because they mistakenly think God sanctions their sin.

Let's consider someone who genuinely repents. He sins, as is bound to be the case. Has he lost his 'Christian' at this point? Does he only regain it if he repents?

[Bill the Cat]

Let's consider someone who genuinely repents. He sins, as is bound to be the case. Has he lost his 'Christian' at this point? Does he only regain it if he repents?

Nope. That's not how salvation works. Nor does it work for the sinner who thumbs his nose at God and basically tells Him "you don't like it? Tough!" and then expects God to grant salvation without any effort at repentance.

[Bill the Cat]

Not the way you would like. It's either comprehensive or retroactive.

It's comprehensive

If it's comprehensive, all sins are considered as repented.

Only if repentance happens in the first place.

If it's retroactive, then it's only those things that happened before the act of repentance.

That's what "A new creature" means. It means you are now seeking to be what God wants you to be, not what you think you are.

Even if you require regular acts of repentance, no human is fully aware of all their sins. Are you still held accountable for things you didn't know (or think) were wrong, to the point of exclusion? That gets you into things like last rites.

Once salvation is truly meted, apostasy is the only way out. God knows us intimately. He knows the beginning from the end. He knows who is serious about wanting to conform to the image of Christ and who wants Christ to conform to the image of their sin.

More common to me is the idea that all your sins have been forgiven, but that the continued act of repentance is part of the sanctification and acknowledging your faults. I don't think that gets you to excluding homosexuals either.

A practicing homosexual is not repenting. The bible is quite clear that those who live a certain way (not commit a sin once, or even once in a great while contrary to their active repenting) will not inherit the Kingdom of God. The active homosexual is not repenting, therefore they do not have the Spirit of God in them.

[Pinoy]

The problem is that some homosexuals think that they are Christians, despite their un-repented sin, so they will claim the name for theirs because they mistakenly think God sanctions their sin.

That maybe the case but the issue by then is a problem with in the community of Christians or proper usage by "Christians". To convey (i hope better) what i mean, let us use as an example the word "Christian", Christians is being redefined by the society and those that wanted to claim the word "they are Christian" but since it is a Christian "jargon", we the "true" "Christian" is telling them the exact/true meaning of Christian.





** Hope I am making sense**

[Paprika]

Nope. That's not how salvation works. Nor does it work for the sinner who thumbs his nose at God and basically tells Him "you don't like it? Tough!" and then expects God to grant salvation without any effort at repentance.

And what about those people who honestly think that the Scriptures do not forbid homosexuality?

[Cow Poke]

Let's consider someone who genuinely repents.

This indicates that he has "turned around".

He sins, as is bound to be the case.

"sins" as in a temporary setback through an action?
Or "sins" as in committing the same act (or attitude) repeatedly, with no sign of contrition?

Has he lost his 'Christian' at this point? Does he only regain it if he repents?

Hmmmm.. this gets into the "eternal security" debate.

[Paprika]

This indicates that he has "turned around".

"sins" as in a temporary setback through an action?
Or "sins" as in committing the same act (or attitude) repeatedly, with no sign of contrition?

The former as well as the case where sin is unrecognised because of ignorance.

[Cow Poke]

The former as well as the case where sin is unrecognised because of ignorance.

REAL ignorance? Or willful ignorance?

[Paprika]

Real ignorance.

[Cow Poke]

oh

[Outis]

REAL ignorance? Or willful ignorance?

Or honest disagreement. Even on very important issues, Christians are not monolithic in their beliefs.

[Cow Poke]

Or honest disagreement.

If I honestly disagree that Christ rose from the dead, can I be considered "saved"?

Even on very important issues, Christians are not monolithic in their beliefs.

Nor has anybody claimed that.

[Paprika]

Nor has anybody claimed that.

Isn't that the implication when someone claims that because of rejection of non-central beliefs, certain people aren't Christians?

The problem is that some homosexuals think that they are Christians, despite their un-repented sin, so they will claim the name for theirs because they mistakenly think God sanctions their sin.